Some additional thoughts I didn’t have room for in today’s column. In fact, these thoughts were actually central to the original idea for the column, but I ended up going in another direction:
A related issue: I’m sick of seeing perception spoken of as though it were substantial. If a poll shows that 57 percent of the country now believes a candidates’ stands on issues should be fair game for questioning (although they didn’t believe so in July, as if such fundamental principles were as mutable as the weather), that does NOT mean that they are fair game for questioning; it means 57 percent of the public didn’t (as of last week, when the poll was conducted) understand what is appropriate and what is not.
I realize that is likely to set off the small-D democrats out there, but the fact is that this country was established as a republic, not a pure democracy, for very good reasons. It wasn’t because those who are elected to represent us are necessarily smarter or better than the rest of us (no one who has spent as much time as I have over at the State House could believe that). It’s that the business of running a government is complicated, and requires more study and attention than the average citizen can devote to it in order to shape sound policy. You can take that same average citizen, and put him in the seat of an elected representative, and if he does the job he’s supposed to do, he will know things that the people who sent him there don’t know, no matter how smart they are. Why? Because they’ve got lives to lead, and he is the one they have delegated to study the issues more closely than they have time to do.
(This is why, for instance, some of the most conscientious Democrats in the Congress, such as Sens. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, are far more committed to sticking it out in Iraq than many of the folks who voted for them. They have done their jobs, and gained expertise in international affairs, and therefore fully understand how disastrous it would be for us to pull out now.)
The Senate, unlike the House, is particularly intended to be shielded from the momentary whims of public opinion — of which this case, in which you have the public exhibiting entirely different sets of values from July to September, is a perfect example. (This is why senators are elected every six years instead of two, and also why they were originally not popularly elected at all, but appointed by legislatures.) And one of the things that senators who take their jobs seriously ought to know is that the suitability of Supreme Court nominees should be based upon their legal credentials, not their personal political opinions. But a weird thing apparently happens in the world of politics: If the president of the opposite party is seen as too popular to challenge, senators tend to toe the line in terms of the propriety of the questions they ask during confirmation hearings. And if the president’s approval rating is in the toilet, one is free to quiz them about anything and everything. To some people (including, according to that poll, a majority of the electorate as of last week), this makes perfect sense. But to the nonpartisan mind, it makes none.
More on perception versus reality: There seems little question that President Bush failed to exhibit the leadership qualities that we deserve in the first days after Katrina hit (although I give him credit for at least trying to hit the right notes since then). I mean, who the expletive cares about Trent Lott’s porch when there are poor folks floating dead in the streets of New Orleans? The answer to that is, the president. And that says some pretty awful things about his suitability as a leader.
But in a larger sense, did the federal government as a whole fail in its job? Well, yes, in the sense that what it did was inadequate to the unbelievably huge task before it. But given the resources (which thanks to budget-cutting, WERE inadequate) and information available to it at the time, was the effort to meet that challenge reasonable?
I don’t know. I realize that makes me sound like an idiot to people who’ve been watching 24/7 news coverage over the last week or so — something I have neither the time or inclination to do. But that’s precisely where my uncertainty comes in. There’s something about that 24/7 news coverage that can shape perception regardless of reality. Decent human beings (with too much time on their hands) who sit and watch hours of human suffering, and then take a lunch break and come back to the tube, say "Oh my God — those people still haven’t been helped yet?" Therefore relief efforts don’t meet their expectations.
But are those expectations realistic? That’s what I don’t know. I’ve heard more than one person who has been involved in such aid operations say that deploying assets within three days of their being requested is actually something of a logistical coup.
I believe there were screw-ups — as there always are in something this big (study the mistakes made on D-Day, or the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest, if you want to see governmental action at its most FUBAR). But was it more fouled up than we should expect? I don’t know, and that’s why investigations into what happened are worthwhile — after we deal with the more immediate problems.
Finally, I want to pin some more blame on the media in general — not just the TV cowboys who so often draw my ire. I’m including the press. Back in 1996, I reviewed a book by James Fallows called BREAKING THE NEWS: How the Media Undermine American Democracy. He wrote that "Step by step, mainstream journalism has fallen into the habit of portraying public life as a race to the bottom, in which one group of conniving, insincere politicians ceaselessly tries to outmaneuver another." More: "By choosing to present public life as a contest among scheming political leaders, all of whom the public should view with suspicion, the news media helps bring about that very result."
It’s a malignant application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to American public life. Mr. Fallows said journalists tend lazily to cast every development in the news in terms of how it affects electoral politics. What may need to be reported are complicated facts that give readers and viewers the perspective they need to understand what happened. But that’s hard to do, whereas talking about the political implications is easy because journalists — particularly Washington journalists — live and breathe that stuff.
An example from the past week: When the president decided to name John Roberts as Chief Justice to replace William Rehnquist, the very first question that occurred to me (as a nonexpert on the subject) was, is this kosher? Has this happened before? Has the president ever named a rookie — one who hasn’t even pitched his first game in the majors, and for that matter doesn’t have much experience in the minors — to the top of the heap, over the heads of more experienced jurists?
I was very disappointed not to find the answer to that question in the first few sources I turned to — including The New York Times, which I usually trust to give me the perspective I seek on such matters. What I did find, however, was multiple references to the political implications of Mr. Bush’s declining popularity, and what that meant in terms of the reception his nominees were bound to get — which is what prompted me to write today’s column to begin with.
(By the way, it turns out I was all wet suspecting there was something unusual about a non-justice being named chief justice. Few of the 16 chief justices of the United States were actually on the court before their elevation.)
Related Posts
“I don’t know. I realize that makes me sound like an idiot to people who’ve been watching 24/7 news coverage over the last week or so — something I have neither the time or inclination to do.”
This is a key reason why you suck as much as you suck. You style yourself a journalist, but not only do you not take the time to find out what’s going on, you deride people who do take the time to find out what’s going on.
“And one of the things that senators who take their jobs seriously ought to know is that the suitability of Supreme Court nominees should be based upon their legal credentials, not their personal political opinions.”
This is just retarded. Do you think that Bush nominated Roberts based solely on his legal credentials? No, he nominated Roberts because he has contempt for the same people for whom Bush has contempt – women, black people, and everyone else who is not a member of Bush’s and Roberts’s “club.” That is something you could have discovered if you took the time to find out what’s going on.
If Bush can nominate someone based on considerations other than his or her legal credentials, why can’t the Senate take those considerations into account?
“But a weird thing apparently happens in the world of politics: If the president of the opposite party is seen as too popular to challenge, senators tend to toe the line in terms of the propriety of the questions they ask during confirmation hearings.”
That’s because the “line” is imaginary. There isn’t any rule or custom against asking a nominee about his or her views on the law. But if a president is popular, there is a tendency to give him or her the benefit of the doubt. However, if the public is getting sick of the president’s screwups and failures, this tendency is less strong. Senators question whether he does in fact deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Ah, and there’s the crux of the problem. Some folks equate watching television with taking “the time to find out what’s going on.”
Some of us, who know the difference between television in the post-Cronkite era and journalism, are too busy actually finding out what’s going on to waste time in that manner.
True, there are some things television (mainly C-SPAN) is useful for: For instance, I think I would have gotten a better impression of the depth of the president’s cluelessness in blathering about Trent Lott’s porch if I had seen video of it. Reading it is enough for me to make up my mind that it was messed up, but seeing and hearing his delivery would have added to my understanding of it.
But most of what is presented on television as “news” these days is shallow, irrational, emotional, repetitive (ESPECIALLY repetitive) nonsense. Sitting and watching it hoping for an occasional nugget of relevance is a HUGE waste of time. It’s much more efficient to go back and find a relevant video clip on the Web when you hear (or read) about it.
I don’t feel this way about radio — especially NPR, which I think does as good a job as any newspaper in the country. Of course, good radio is rare. Most news on the radio is rip-and-read — stuff essentially read out of newspapers, or from wire services, which amounts to the same thing. But NPR is wonderfully original and thorough.
Another way radio is superior to television: You don’t have to watch correspondents or anchors studiously assuming the correct facial expression or side comment to match the emotion of the item being presented. That’s just insufferable.
“Ah, and there’s the crux of the problem. Some folks equate watching television with taking “the time to find out what’s going on.”
Some of us, who know the difference between television in the post-Cronkite era and journalism, are too busy actually finding out what’s going on to waste time in that manner.”
But you don’t know what’s going on. So who are you, an ignorant person, to tell other people “oh, trying to find out things this way is a waste of time.”
This:
“But in a larger sense, did the federal government as a whole fail in its job? Well, yes, in the sense that what it did was inadequate to the unbelievably huge task before it. But given the resources (which thanks to budget-cutting, WERE inadequate) and information available to it at the time, was the effort to meet that challenge reasonable?
I don’t know.”
is not a statement that would be made by someone who knows what’s going on. The answer is to the question is no.
And you could have found out the answer by watching the TV. If you had watched the TV, you would have known that Brown said they didn’t know people were in the Convention Center. And if you had watched the TV, you would have known that if Brown had been watching the TV, he would have known that there were people inside the Convention Center.
So the answer to the question: was the federal response reasonable, could be answered by posing and answering the question: was it reasonable for federal officials to fail to deliver aid to thousands of starving, desperate people when they could have known that those people needed aid simply by turning on the TV?
And the answer to that is, of course, no.
That’s a fundamental question, whose answer is easily discoverable, but which you did not know because of your disdain for information gathering methods other than introspection. And in your case, relying on introspection is a huge mistake. Looking into an empty hole usually doesn’t yield all that much information.
Not every question can be answered by pretending to be nonpartisan while decrying the acknowledgement of any information that casts the party you favor in a bad light.
Brad, this addendum to your column raises so many intriguing issues that we could go back and forth on this ad infinitum. Just a quick thought, though…I’m with you on the degraded state of much press coverage of politics and government, especially TV “journalism.” Regarding Fallows’ point that you quote (“mainstream journalism has fallen into the habit of portraying public life as a race to the bottom, in which one group of conniving, insincere politicians ceaselessly tries to outmaneuver another…”)…in your regular column of the same day you said:
“Is it really too much to expect elected representatives to think about how to help the victims of Katrina rather than point fingers? Or consider the actual merit of nominees, rather than what the situation offers in the way of advantage for them and their parties…?”
Are you trying to have it both ways? Yes, the media often rush to the worst judgment about elected officials, focusing constantly on the “horse race” electoral aspect, but, as you quite correctly observed in your main column, this IS unfortunately more and more the reality in 21st-century America.
If more and more of our population comes to rely only on “McNews” or “McReality” for its information, then the conditions are ripe for succumbing to demagoguery, propaganda, and even to an eventual surrender of civil liberties. In my opinion, we are already seeing a little tip of the iceberg of this with the present administration, with its carefully crafted and endlessly repeated stock phrases, such as “War on Terror.” It is to their advantage for us as a nation to be poorly informed.
Mary and Phillip –
If you take a gander over at the other thread, you’ll see news articles published today reporting that communications with the city weren’t too great for either the feds or state folks.
Bush nominated Roberts for his credentials/reputation and the high probability of getting him confirmed. Your remark that “he nominated Roberts because he has contempt for the same people for whom Bush has contempt – women, black people, and everyone else who is not a member of Bush’s and Roberts’s ‘club’” is contemptible but expected. (I almost wrote “puerile” but remember my Latin and that you pretend to be female.)
As for “McNews,” the meme-generators are all around us and have been at it for years. Remember “for the children?” I find the “War on Terror” meme useful to remind folks that the bad want to kill us for what we believe, things like women drivers, Elvis, and living and letting live.
We conservatives are rather tired of being called racist curmudgeons who hate the poor. The key to being poor is to have kids out of wedlock, not finish high school, and depend on others for one’s wants and needs. There’s an ethos of poverty that’s become ingrained in many; conservatives want to break that, to make folks self-sufficient and self-reliant citizens. When we act sternly by insisting on things like welfare reform, why do you deny that love might be a motivation? When we argue against affirmative action, why do you call us “racist” and refuse to accept our explanation that we believe that racial preferences of any sort are wrong? If we dare correctly say that the Ku Klux Klan practiced affirmative action, you call us racist. We have some ideas that evidence indicates work. We have other ideas that we believe will work. We have lots of evidence that solutions tried to date have not worked and will hold NO up as an example of a city ruled for decades by folks with a progressive bent that is not successful.
Oh, I don’t think FEMA is a good idea. I think we should split responsibilities between the DOD and the private sector, to be led by Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and UPS.
Hi Mike,
hey, don’t lump me in with Mary. You won’t see me using “suck” and “retarded” in my posts. By the way, I am a liberal who most certainly does NOT believe that classic conservatives hate poor people. Your way of describing your beliefs is eloquent; I wish more conservatives and Republicans phrased their arguments thus, rather than appealing to the most selfish motivations and prejudices of voters. What it comes down to is not that conservatives “hate” the poor, of course they don’t…they just tend to forget about them in their frenzy to reward those who have more, i.e., themselves.
As for “War on Terror” your phrase “useful to remind folks…” is the giveaway. Who needs reminding that there are evil terrorists out there? What you and your president seem to mean is that people need to be reminded about the PROPER WAY to think about the evil in the world. Whether or not one agrees with our Iraq action, the steadfastness and simplicity of the message helped make domestic support possible. No, this administration is not the first to employ such techniques, but these guys and gals are the most effective I’ve witnessed in my lifetime.
“Your remark that “he nominated Roberts because he has contempt for the same people for whom Bush has contempt – women, black people, and everyone else who is not a member of Bush’s and Roberts’s ‘club’” is contemptible but expected.”
You mean that you disagree with it. Actually, more accurately, you object to the assertion of an opinion that you want to pretend is unjustified. The fact is, however, that Roberts’s contempt for persons he perceives as “other” is clear from his writings.
“conservatives want to break that, to make folks self-sufficient and self-reliant citizens.”
No you don’t. You want to transfer public money and property to yourselves and others whom you perceive to be like you. All the money Bush “made” was derived from what amounted to bribes (his numerous bailouts from his failed businesses) and direct transfers of public resources (the use of public funds and condemnation power for the purchase of a baseball stadium for the baseball team he was allowed to buy into by people who wanted favors from the federal government). You don’t object to the way dependence on subsidies and public payments sapped Bush’s self-reliance. You don’t object to the fact that South Carolinians collect, on average, $1.35 in federal payments and services for every $1.00 they pay in federal taxes, sapping their self-reliance. So no, breaking the “ethos of poverty” isn’t what motivates you; it’s just what you want people to believe motivates you.
“When we act sternly by insisting on things like welfare reform, why do you deny that love might be a motivation?”
Because it isn’t. You simply want to inveigh against people you perceive as “other.” Condemn farm subsidies if you want anybody to believe you’re sincere. Call for a restructuring of federal taxes and expenditures so that taxpayers in conservative states pay their fair share of federal taxes. Until then, your claim that you are motivated by “love” to “reform” some public grants but not others will be recognized as a disingenuous attribution of noble motives to yourself.
“When we argue against affirmative action, why do you call us “racist”
Because you are.
“and refuse to accept our explanation that we believe that racial preferences of any sort are wrong?”
Because you’re lying.
Michael Brown was an affirmative action hire.
The staff at the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who oversaw the “vanishing” of $9 billion during their mission for which they “volunteered” in order to “help” brown people were affirmative action hires.
Those bother you not at all.
Until you object to affirmative action hires of white people, don’t pretend that your opposition to affirmative action for nonwhite people is motivated by anything other than racism.
Phillip – Sorry, my aim was off. I apologize if I offended.
Mary –
I join my fellow conservatives in denouncing farm subsidies and pork of all sorts. I have taken direct aim at one type of pork at my blog.
This is consistent with our push for tax simplification. I like a flat income tax, others like a national sales tax, but whatever one prefers, we agree that today’s tax code is just potential mischief created by mischief-makers. In truth, each special tax provision smells a bit of corruption, so we say toss them away.
You speak of taking money from others as something conservatives do to sustain themselves. Au contraire! Conservatives like to work hard and enjoy their earnings, whatever size they may be – most are modest. They like to make the national wealth and income pies larger, and the only way to do that is to prepare their offspring to seize the opportunities that life may offer. They start businesses or work hard in whatever enterprise they favor and qualify for. They believe in charity and practice it to the extent they can afford and believe prudent. They believe in capitalism, free trade, and free markets as the very best ways to increase human prosperity. What differentiates conservatives from libertarians is the importance conservatives place on culture and its transmission; that’s why religion is usually an integral part of their lives. We’re life, liberty, and pursuit of property folks, proud of our country, believers in the Constitution, and adherents to the Ten Commandments. We are doers who tend to see the world in black and white with very little gray. Finally, we are succeeding in convincing folks that it’s not skin color, family ties, sex, or other broad grouping that makes one a conservative, but individual effort and beliefs that do.
We view socialism and its variants as mistaken and deadly. Socialists have the audacity to deprive folks of what’s rightfully theirs and give it to the undeserving. That becomes the political aim that you mistakenly attribute to conservatives when you write “You want to transfer public money and property to yourselves and others whom you perceive to be like you.” All political parties may engage in that indirectly to some extent, but conservatives, regardless of party affiliation, in public office should be good stewards of public funds. Socialists, on the other hand, must be able direct or pretend to direct government funds to their interest groups to maintain the support that keeps them in power.
A good example is the Democrat party that relies on blacks for support – they have to pretend to fund things that blacks as a group favor. That party also tries to keep tort law free and easy to appease the plaintiff’s bar and keep their growing funds coming in to support party efforts. In this case there’s no direct expenditure by the party, but rather a slant in legislation that accommodates the bar’s need to sue those who have oodles of money.
To arrive at the transparency we conservatives believe that government should have and to eliminate the justifiable fears that favored groups are getting more than their fair share, we need to scale down the scope of federal government to a size that enables the transparency. Thus subsidies to corporations, farmers, individuals, and whatevers are out. Take the federal gas tax — we say eliminate it and let states pay for their own roads — that would eliminate part of the subsidy you perceive. Where a highway that crosses a border needs improvement, let the states involved enter into a contract to make the change. Farmers are free try to make money by growing corn for ethanol, but without direct or indirect subsidies. (I should add that part of the $0.35 “subsidy” that SC receives is for federal retirement benefits of one sort or another.)
As for Roberts’s nomination to the Supremes, you infer much. Perhaps it’s because you have an unusual definition of “affirmative action,” something that Roberts and other conservatives oppose. We prefer to use the phrase “racial preference” in place of what others call “affirmative action” when referring to selecting someone based on perceived group membership, usually race or sex. By all accounts he’s one smart cookie (should I write “cracker”?) who appears to support enumerated individual rights over nebulous group rights. He may not suffer idiots, but most folks don’t either.
Almost finally, you adhere to the notion of club, presumably a conservative club, chartered by Bush and Roberts. Here’s the real secret: we are a tribe. We don’t take a blood oath, we don’t have a central council, but we do have admission criteria – you can learn about them here.
Finally, you repeat the slander that those folks who volunteered to go to Iraq to help build a new country are crooks. This claim is serious, so I again ask for evidence to support that.
No,
Conservatives say they like to work hard and enjoy their earnings, whatever size they may be.
They say they like to make the national wealth and income pies larger.
They say they start businesses or work hard in whatever enterprise they favor and qualify for.
They say they believe in charity and practice it to the extent they can afford and believe prudent.
They say they believe in capitalism, free trade, and free markets as the very best ways to increase human prosperity.
What they really do is transfer money and resources to themselves.
“We view socialism and its variants as mistaken and deadly.”
Yeah, I go to Canada all the time; it’s just a living nightmare, isn’t it? People from Canada are just storming the border trying to get into South Carolina, aren’t they?
“That party also tries to keep tort law free and easy to appease the plaintiff’s bar and keep their growing funds coming in to support party efforts.”
You mean that it opposes allowing lobbyists for people that cause injuries to limit the compensation for the injuries they cause?
Let me get this straight. You say you don’t believe in redistribution of property, but you want to let someone who, say, kills another person, set an arbitrary limit on the compensation he has to pay to the family of the person he killed.
Like I said, conservatives believe in using the federal government to transfer income and property to themselves and persons whom they perceive to be like them. You see yourself as more like an insurance company, so you want to take an injured persons right to compensation away and give it to the insurance company.
“All political parties may engage in that indirectly to some extent, but conservatives, regardless of party affiliation, in public office should be good stewards of public funds.”
Yeah, we’ve gone through all the “should be’s,” what we need now is an “is.”
And as for the rest of your pompous, droning recitation, listing a bunch of “principles” that you don’t believe in or adhere to, and for which you present no evidence, is meaningless. If you want to prove you aren’t a hypocrite, here’s what you can do. Take 35% of the federal taxes you paid, pick some random person from, say, New Jersey, and send them a check for that amount.
One thing you wrote is pretty cool, though, even though you don’t really believe it:
“Take the federal gas tax — we say eliminate it and let states pay for their own roads — that would eliminate part of the subsidy you perceive.”
That would rock. Our streets would be paved with gold. You wouldn’t have any streets at all.
“Finally, you repeat the slander that those folks who volunteered to go to Iraq to help build a new country are crooks. This claim is serious, so I again ask for evidence to support that.”
And again, I furnish you with the evidence:
$9 billion “vanished” while they were supposed to be overseeing it.
q.e.d.
Mike,
I love hear
Guardians
Of
Privilege
proclaim their supposed superiority. Free market capitalism is the biggest wealth re-distribution scam ever. I’m going to show the men in my shop your pretentious proclamation. You think that you are better and more deserving than other people are. The unfortunate reality (for you, that is) is that the people who work the hardest often are paid the least, and they are looking for a change. My co-workers and I have been forced into a standard fifty-hour work despite our strenuous objections. We are sick of being screwed by people like you.
Your problem is that you’ve never really worked (please spare me of your inevitable self-made “man” reply rhetoric-with links), and I don’t think that you would last eight hours doing a typical man’s job.
Keep publishing this tripe-thanks for digging the Republican Party’s grave even faster for me!
Oh yeah, fear mongering and race baiting aren’t going to work this time. Finally, enough folks have wised up to it-they don’t believe the corporate media anymore, nor do they believe quasi-effeminate sycophants who fund the corporate media. Thanks buddy.
If a poll shows that 57 percent of the country now believes a candidates’ stands on issues should be fair game for questioning (although they didn’t believe so in July, as if such fundamental principles were as mutable as the weather), that does NOT mean that they are fair game for questioning; it means 57 percent of the public didn’t (as of last week, when the poll was conducted) understand what is appropriate and what is not.
Shorter Brad: “Shut up and follow!”
To All – Bush’s approval ratings are beginning to rise now. Soon more hysteria and desparation will set in on the Bush haters.
Mary – ARe you aware Canada is begging for immigrants and has lax admission standards while the immigrants continue to flock into the USA. Wonder why? Maybe you have the answer.
Mark – If someone else had not stuck their neck out and founded an enterprise, you would be a surefire welfare queen. So, now that you have a job, you hate your company and its management. You were born in the wrong generation. Communism hit its pinnacle back in the 40s and 50s. Speaking of communism, which economist once said that the problem with communism, where everyone’s wants supposedly equal everyone’s needs, no one wants to volunteer to be the garbage man.
As for your 50 hour forced week, that is against the law and a cheap scheister trial lawyer could make you a rich communist with a little effort.
Mary, kc, and Mark –
Unless I’m missing something, I starting to get the feeling that we just aren’t going to see eye to eye.
I enjoy the give and take of a frank exchange, but you and yours are rather shrill. What really gets in the way is that you make unwarranted assumptions about who I am and what I write. Forget the personal stuff, tackle the ideas.
Mary’s hung up on the 35% more in federal payments that SC takes in over what SC taxpayers shell out. Does she know what the components are? I don’t think so.
She charges that because some folks volunteered to serve in helping to get Iraq on its feet, they took $9B in reconstruction funds that are indeed missing. That’s as compelling as say that FDR was president when WWII started, so he must have caused it, ditto for Truman and Korea or Wilson and WWI, or Carter and Mt. St. Helens’ eruption. (I agree that a crime was committed, but await the results of the ongoing investigation.)
BTW, Canada is killing people by delaying timely medical care. They reduce their medical expenses by rationing treatment; it’s a long but interesting story that I hope to examine soon on my website. I am losing my Canadian friends, but for a different reason: they’re becoming American citizens.
But I am again feeding the trolls. I gotta grab some sleep so that I can get an early start on screwing folks out of their birthright.
kc,
OK, I’ve shut up and I’m listening hard, ready to follow the crowd in whichever way it chooses to stampede next.
But — apparently like the rest of the herd — I’m confused. Which voice of the people should I follow? The one in July, or the one at the end of August? Or the one next week?
Some things are true and right, and other things are false and wrong, no matter what the polls say. That is so patently obvious that it seems ridiculously trite to have to say it. But apparently I must.